Inside Politics

Paging former Justice Frank Iacobucci to the House of Commons Courtesy Phone ...

by Kady O'Malley Posted: April 29, 2010 12:07 PM Last Updated: April 29, 2010 12:28 PM
The recent flurry of Speaker's-ruling-sparked speculation over whether Justice Iacobucci's mandate had been rendered moot by his conclusion that it is for parliamentarians to decide which detainee-related documents may eventually be made public got me wondering as to exactly how he's doing in accomplishing his appointed task -- which, if you'll recall, the terms of reference stated was "to be completed expeditiously".

According to Order in Council 2010-0295, Iacobucci was officially appointed as a special advisor to the Minister of Justice on March 13, 2010, which means that he's been on the job for over a month. So, how's it going so far? To find out, I dropped a note to the minister's office yesterday morning, which included the following questions:
  • Has [Iacobucci] started his work yet?
  • How many documents has he been given?
  • Has he hired any staff to assist him? If so, can you give any details on who they are, and the process for issuing security clearance for anyone who will also have access to the documents?
At 5:28 PM, I received the following response from Carol Saindon, senior advisor for media and public relations with the Department of Justice:

Hi Kady,

Your e-mail concernant Mr. Iacobucci was forwarded to me by the Minister's Office earlier. Please see information in response immediately below:


The Government has asked the Honourable Frank Iacobucci to undertake an independent, comprehensive and proper review of the documents at issue.
Mr. Iacobucci has begun his work.

For additional information, please refer to the terms of reference for the Independent Advisor to Review National Security Information available at :
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2010/doc_32488.html

Best,

carole
Careful readers will note that this reply -- which arrived six hours after I submitted my question to the minister -- answers exactly one of my questions -- nor, for that matter, do the terms of reference to which the department so helpfully directed me for "additional information" do much to clarify matters, particularly regarding the use of "expert staff" to assist him in his efforts. (Just to make it clear, I'm not interested in a gotcha-style expense story here; I'm more curious as to whether those experts would have to be authorized by the department, which could limit the scope of advice that he might be able to seek out.) 

Undaunted, I shot back a note pointing that out, and asked if there was anyone who might be able to update me on the current status of the review.

I'm still waiting to hear back, but at the moment, I must admit that I'm not overly optimistic. It's possible, of course, that the former jurist is holed up in an empty office over at Justice, diligently sorting through the stacks of unredacted documents that the government has provided, and they just don't want to tell me -- or anyone else -- about it. It's also possible that there has been absolutely no progress on that front, and that the minister and/or his department were devoutly hoping that parliamentarians -- not to mention the media public -- would eventually lose interest, and forget all about it.

Given the ruling handed down by the Speaker earlier this week, that seems unlikely, particularly if the opposition parties were to propose changing the Iacobucci mandate so he reports to Parliament, instead of the minister, or even take on an advisory role to the MPs who will eventually be granted access to the documents in question. In which case the department would be wise to start putting together a better response, because I don't think they'd be terribly amused by being pointed at a press release from last month. 

INSTAUPDATE: Literally moments ago -- as I was posting this very rant, in fact -- Carole Saindon sent the following reply to my (admittedly, ever so slightly passive aggressive) request for a contact number for Iacobucci, or at least his office, on the logic that he might be willing to share a little more detail on the progress he's made to date:

Sorry for the delay getting back to you. As stated in the March 13th DoJ news release concerning the terms of reference for Mr. Iacobucci's work, 'Mr. Iacobucci will be unavailable for public comment until his report is completed'.

Well, it was worth a shot, anyway. Here's hoping that the spirit of cooperation and openness emanating from today's opening negotiations rubs off on whoever sets the departmental communications policy.

Tags: at least she didn't redact her reply, blackberry jungle, iacobucciwatch, media advisors unclear on the concept, privilegewatch, rob nicholson